Jack Cashill's TWA 800: Practicing Journalism in a Failed Republic

American Thinker ^ | June 16 2016 | James Sanders

[Kaslin]

James Sanders was the first investigative reporter to get beyond the TWA 800 press releases issued by the FBI. He paid a high price for doing so. If Sanders seems a bit cynical, the reader will soon understand why. -- Jack Cashill

America’s citizens must learn the truth: Reality is what remains after federal propagandists interpret fact. This is an absolute truth for citizens living in a failed republic -- including the United States in 2016.

I’m a medically retired police officer from southern California with more than thirty years experience investigating federal lawlessness buried within the National Archives storage boxes and the Freedom of Information Act. In my investigation of TWA Flight 800 among other incidents, I discovered that the greater story was the fall of the American Republic.

Over the decades it became abundantly evident the federal National Security State does not care what the law states. It will fight to keep the worst sins classified even though the law says documents classified secret and more than fifty years old must be declassified with only two very narrow exceptions: weapons of mass destruction and the name of a source.

[Moonman62]

Post #25 isn’t by you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Laboratory testing of a 747’s electrical system created arcing with 5kJ of energy.

5000 joules of energy? Why would you think 5KJ testing would help your argument? You can catch aluminum on fire with that level of energy, let alone Jet fuel.

[XHogPilot]

There were plenty of small SAM systems in 1996, both shoulder fired and small vehicle mounted, which were capable of reaching a B747 target at that altitude. For example, here’s open source data for the SA-16 GIMLET aka IGLA, which was available at the time, capable of TWA 800’s altitude, and used an impact warhead.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_heavy_weapons_uk/sa-16_gimlet_9k310_igla-1_man-portable_missile_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures.html.

The missile you present, the Stinger, is late 1960s technology.

You said: A stinger won’t reach that altitude. Only a large missile fired from a big boat. When they are fired from a ship everyone on the ship knows it. They also work by proximity fuse so they frag the crap out of the target. They get close and explode peppering the target with fragmentation that leaves very distinct marks.

[Moonman62]

Range and altitude for missiles is not the same. The max altitude for a stinger at that time was only ~13,000 ft.

...

The favorite witness of conspiracy theorists, Mike Wire, says the “firework” he saw was zigzagging and arcing down before the explosion. That’s seems like a lot of extra work for an intercepting missile.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have always wondered, it it was terrorists, why didn’t they take credit?

What do you suppose would have happened if Iranians took credit for shooting down an American Jetliner?

[Purdue77]

Try this:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WMUS_Stinger_FIM-92.php

[Moonman62]

5000 joules of energy? Why would you think 5KJ testing would help your argument?

...

Because 5000 is greater than 80, which was what was determined to be enough to ignite the vapor in TWA900’s center tank at the time. You’ve cited it several times.

[Political Junkie Too]

Yes, they destroyed Salinger's reputation.

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

The favorite witness of conspiracy theorists, Mike Wire, says the “firework” he saw was zigzagging and arcing down before the explosion. That’s seems like a lot of extra work for an intercepting missile.

They didn't get the settings for their PID controller quite right. Too much overshoot, not enough dampening.

The Iranians pride themselves on building a lot of their own stuff. This is possibly an indication of their quality of work at the time.

Even our stuff sometimes tracks a little screwy.

Look at the flight paths of some of these Iron Dome interceptor tracks.

ZigZagging is something that occasionally happens when you are trying to intercept a flying object especially as the missile gets closer to it's target and has to correct faster.

[DiogenesLamp]

Because 5000 is greater than 80, which was what was determined to be enough to ignite the vapor in TWA900’s center tank at the time. You’ve cited it several times.

Yes, 5000 is greater than 80, but you haven't yet established any reasonable means of getting 80 Joules of energy into the fuel tank. What sort of resistance do you think fuel sensors have anyway?

[Moonman62]

Yes, 5000 is greater than 80, but you haven’t yet established any reasonable means of getting 80 Joules of energy into the fuel tank. What sort of resistance do you think fuel sensors have anyway?

...

Who am I to believe? Professional laboratories that documented their work, or you with your hearsay, conspiracy theories and middle school understanding of physics.

[BBB333]

How ‘bout this:

The metal was bent INTO the fuel tank, hence it could not have exploded.

[DiogenesLamp]

Who am I to believe? Professional laboratories that documented their work,

You can believe professional laboratories who say that it is possible to ignite jet fuel with 80-5000 joules of energy. Sure you can believe them that such tests will yield such results, but that's not addressing the salient question.

How do you get a 80 or even 5000 joule discharge into a fuel tank without deliberately intending to create one?

[angryoldfatman]

Thanks.

A little short on altitude, but other sources I just found seem to say around 10,000 ft or something between 3 and 4 km.

So much for Stingers, unless modified in some significant way that a bunch of former mooj are incapable of.

I still believe the hundred or so eyewitnesses, including the guy flying above the plane, I believe his name was Brumley.

Also, the fact that no news of how it happened was forthcoming one entire year after the incident made me suspicious at the time, even though they had all of the recorders and evidence they needed by September 1996. It’s almost as if they were waiting for Billy the Rapist’s inauguration before saying anything.

[Moonman62]

If the Iranians were going to cross the Atlantic to commit terror why didn’t they shoot warheads into Manhattan? It would have been easier and more terrifying than shooting down an aircraft at 13,000 feet, especially with their crude PID controllers. It also would have been more difficult for Clinton to coverup.

Iron Dome didn’t exist in 1996, is Israeli, and is designed to shoot down small fast moving rockets. TWA800 would have been an easy target for a large military missile, no zigzagging or arcing required.

[angryoldfatman]

I’m not attributing this to the Iranians in particular, but as far as Muslim terrorist attacks in Manhattan during the Clinton administration go (a bunch of Muslims, doing a terrorist attack in NYC? Unthinkable, right? ;-) ), it was done and there was very little retaliation in return IIRC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

[Kaslin]

So did I and I don’t think we are alone.

[Moonman62]

How do you get a 80 or even 5000 joule discharge into a fuel tank without deliberately intending to create one?

...

That was covered. A short circuit between a high voltage wire and a FQIS wire where they come together in a raceway.

[DiogenesLamp]

If the Iranians were going to cross the Atlantic to commit terror why didn’t they shoot warheads into Manhattan? It would have been easier and more terrifying than shooting down an aircraft at 13,000 feet, especially with their crude PID controllers. It also would have been more difficult for Clinton to coverup.

How would that be identified as revenge for shooting down Iran Air flight 655? Also how would that kill as many people for such a low cost? Do you think any boat could fire "warheads" into Manhattan and get away with it?

I think "getting away with it" was an important part of their plan.

Iron Dome didn’t exist in 1996, is Israeli, and is designed to shoot down small fast moving rockets.

Iron Dome was just used because it was the quickest example of rockets zigzagging that I could remember, but the phenomena is quite common with air to air or surface to air missiles.

The missile control system over corrects for the signal from the tracking head and it has to steer back the other way in an effort to compensate.

Oscillations are quite common in negative feedback systems if the system is not sufficiently damped. Or course, damping slows down the response, so perhaps they made a judgement call to live with the oscillations because they were controllable enough for the missile to still hit it's target.

Missiles flying screwy or zig-zaggy is not uncommon.

[Moonman62]

Missiles flying screwy or zig-zaggy is not uncommon.

...

You’re giving examples of contrails that are affected by the wind. Mike Wire said the “firework” zigzagged. Mike Wire was also about eleven miles from the explosion. How does that compare to your pictures?